Furthermore you still do not get what this is about. It is - for all intents and purposes - undeniable that the organism exhibits both, characteristics (similar to those) of reptiles and of birds. What is (or rather was) a matter of dispute - at least somewhat - is whether that makes it a bird, a reptile or something else entirely.

Archeopteryx has BOTH reptilian and avian characteristics......that makes it a transitional fossil/species UNDENIABLY.

I see this as creationist denialism. Creationists want transitional fossils. We provide them. Then they challenge these by saying "Hmmm, well you can't really tell what it is, since it has characteristics of both. Is it A, is it B, neither? Keep trying. WE WANT TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS!"

Don't you think that if it was UNDENIABLE, there would be a comprehensive declaration from the scientific community somewhere attesting to same? If you have something of the kind, please share it. Otherwise, what you are doing here is what theists like myself are so often accused of doing....which is making unsubstantiated claims.....and, as you know, us theists get railed big time for doing stuff like that.

You said this is UNDENIABLY a transitional fossil. Do you have something to back this up as being UNDENIABLE ? You might want reference the exchange between Emergence and myself before you answer this. Good luck.

If the actions of a scientist caught in perpetrating a fraud calls into question all of science and its methodology and premises, should not the actions of one priest, caught in perpetrating a fraud, call into question all of christian religion and its methodology and premises?

In all fairness, Grimm, AFAIK, BibleStudent has not said that "a scientist caught in perpetrating a fraud calls into question all of science and its methodology and premises". He has certainly implied that, but hasn't been explicit.

Wright-I appreciate the show of support, however, your indications that I have somehow implied that "one bad apple spoils the bunch" is utter hogwash. Never said it. Never implied it. After reading this, I honestly don't think you are reading what I am writing. That is just a total falsification of everything I've said to clarify the intent of my argument(s).

Any scientist of any religious stripe can inject all the frickin' bias they want into their work. But it won't hold up. They'll get called on it by other researchers who are indeed more concerned with accuracy than with agendas.

Any scientist of any religious stripe can inject all the frickin' bias they want into their work. But it won't hold up. They'll get called on it by other researchers who are indeed more concerned with accuracy than with agendas.

For the last time, at least from me, no one has ever said that every single scientist agrees with each other on everything, all of the time. Your continuous dragging out of articles that show problems with scientists is nothing new, and in NO WAY WHATSOEVER takes away from the scientific method, currently the ABSOLUTE BEST WAY to discover truth about how things work.

The implications of all of your replies amount to some bizarre conspiracy idea that if you can find enough problems with specific scientists, or a sampling of them, that we somehow have to consider that current theories and hypotheses from science are possibly suspect. Bullshit on a stick.

The bottom line is that you are a theist. You think there is a god involved in our world. Atheists, on the other hand, are mostly in agreement that all gods are imaginary, so we think your position is complete crap. Add to that the fact that there is LITERALLY ZERO EVIDENCE, NOR A VALID REASON to jump from the unknown workings of the universe, to a god, and we have a very basic impasse.

The only reason you believe in a god is because you bought the lie - lock, stock and barrel. And now, one of the tactics you are using to defend yourself, is to trot out the obvious: namely, even scientists are not perfect. Some are even dishonest. BFD, I say.

Instead of all of the attacks on the very thing that affords you any sort of comfortable life, built by hardworking people, based on scientific advances, why don't you concentrate on providing facts and evidence to support whatever the fuck you think is the mechanism that your god used to create the ENTIRE FUCKING UNIVERSE! (here come the miracles, I am a prophet...)

Just wanted to say thank you for another one of your senseless ramblings. You never fail to pull in and offer only the most adolescent of diatribes.

Yes, and as expected, you respond in kind. You are a child, incapable of discussion at an adult level. As evidenced by your baseless and pointless replies, that gain you absolutely no ground towards decent and honest discussion.

Just wanted to say thank you for another one of your senseless ramblings. You never fail to pull in and offer only the most adolescent of diatribes.

I just realized that you obviously have some reading comprehension problems as well. If you have the capacity, I DARE you to tear apart my reply that you summarily dismissed in this pathetic reply of yours. Go ahead. I spent time replying to you, so what are you afraid of?

Wright-I appreciate the show of support, however, your indications that I have somehow implied that "one bad apple spoils the bunch" is utter hogwash. Never said it. Never implied it. After reading this, I honestly don't think you are reading what I am writing. That is just a total falsification of everything I've said to clarify the intent of my argument(s).

On rereading your entries with more care, I realize that's indeed the case. FWIW, I apologize. Though I don't think you give science credit for policing and correcting itself, you have not attacked the process.

Clearly, I need to read more carefully.

Logged

Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.--Marcus Aurelius

On rereading your entries with more care, I realize that's indeed the case. FWIW, I apologize. Though I don't think you give science credit for policing and correcting itself, you have not attacked the process.

Just wanted to say thank you for another one of your senseless ramblings. You never fail to pull in and offer only the most adolescent of diatribes.

Yes, and as expected, you respond in kind. You are a child, incapable of discussion at an adult level. As evidenced by your baseless and pointless replies, that gain you absolutely no ground towards decent and honest discussion.

HAHAHA Jetson your response to me a couple days ago suddenly makes a lot more sense

You said this is UNDENIABLY a transitional fossil. Do you have something to back this up as being UNDENIABLE ?

Well let's see......

Quote from: wiki

Similar in size and shape to a European Magpie, Archaeopteryx could grow to about 0.5 metres (1.6 ft) in length. Despite its small size, broad wings, and inferred ability to fly or glide, Archaeopteryx has more in common with small theropod dinosaurs than it does with modern birds. In particular, it shares the following features with the deinonychosaurs (dromaeosaurs and troodontids): jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest homeothermy), and various skeletal features.[1][2] The features above make Archaeopteryx a clear candidate for a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds.[3][4] Thus, Archaeopteryx plays an important role not only in the study of the origin of birds but in the study of dinosaurs.

Much has been made in pseudoscientific circles about the position of Archae within the evolutionary scheme of things. The usual "argument" put forward is that Archae cannot be a transitional fossil between birds and dinosaurs because it is a bird. This simplistic line belies the fact that, whilst Archae is indeed classified as a bird, it has been done so on the strength of 4 main characters - 2 of which are not unique to birds. This classification ignores the fact that Archae has numerous characters which are unique, unique in that they are not possessed by birds. Archae's avian affinities are allowable on the strength of the following 4 main characters:

...

15) Pelvic girdle and femur joint is archosaurian rather than avian (except for the backward pointing pubis as mentioned above).

Here Archae really shows its transitional nature. Whilst the pelvic girdle as a whole is basically free and similar to archosaur girdles, the pubis points backward - a character shared with birds and some other bird-like theropod dinosaurs.

...

It can be seen that Archae possesses many more characters which are present in dinosaurs and not in birds, than it does characters which are present in birds but not in dinosaurs. This is why Archae is a true transitional species, because it shares some characters which are diagnostic of one group whilst still retaining characters diagnostic of its ancestral group. Anyone who claims that Archae is 100% bird is wrong. Anyone who claims that Archae's skeleton is even predominantly bird- like is wrong. Anyone who claims Archae has a "totally birdlike" skull is wrong.

This latter point is made in reference to the claim by Dr. Duane Gish that the skull of Archae is "totally birdlike" (R. Trott pers. comm. 1994).

It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora, than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups. It is one of the most important fossils ever discovered.

You might want reference the exchange between Emergence and myself before you answer this. Good luck.

You might want to read it again, he agrees with me.

To emphasize this again: YES, i do completely agree with Cyberia on this.

BS, what you do not seem to get is, that the question whether Archaeopteryx is a bird, reptilian or something else is a question of definitions, not a question of characteristics. The phenotypical characteristics of the Archaeopteryx fossil make it a transitional form. But there are only the classes "bird" and "reptile", because the classification system is older than the systematic examination of the phylogenic development of organisms through time. Any organism found - even those only available in fossilized form - are classified into that totally artificial system for practicality purposes. Compared to the representatives of birds and reptiles living today, the scientists at the conference (and after that) decided that the phenotype of the organism places it closer to the ancestry of modern birds than that of modern reptiles, thus classifying it as "bird". Nonetheless the specimens exemplify - by the presence of phenotypic traits of boths artificially distinguished classes - a transitional form between them.

Let me give it a last try to bring this particular discrepancy between an artificial system of classification and nature through to you by using an example:

Haley Joel Osment[1] is now 22, i.e. legally unambiguously classified as an adult. Let's take two other legal/cultural classifications into it: childhood and adolescence. Now look at the following images at different stages of his development[2]:

Can you assign all images to one of the three stages: adulthood, adolescence and childhood? You probably have a hard time to decide whether he's still a child or already an adolescent on some images or whether he is an adolescent or an adult. Yet you can try and assign these classifications by appearance. You won't say that he is "something completely different" on one of the images. Yet it should be obvious that many of the images show Haley in various "intermediate" stages between two of the three classifications respectively. That means that it is possible for Haley to be classified as - say - an adult, and yet shows the appearance of an intermediate between adult and adolescent. Even if you take into account that there are legal stages where an individual is considered to be in one of those classifications based on age, it still remains obvious that there are no well defined steps that the phenotypical development of an individual takes to switch from one classification to another. Thus one can be both classified as an adult and transitioning between adolescence and adulthood phenotypically.

The same goes for Archaeopteryx. I hope that clarifies it now. It is practically undeniable that intermediate forms exist and the interpretation as being transitional corresponds with observations from many fields of life-science and is therefore as plausible as any scientific conclusion can get.

I hope that clarifies it now. It is practically undeniable that intermediate forms exist and the interpretation as being transitional corresponds with observations from many fields of life-science and is therefore as plausible as any scientific conclusion can get.

I understand the classification issue. That makes perfect sense to me. That's really not what I was getting at, though. I still maintain that anyone who claims this creature UNDENIABLY represents a transitional life form lacks the proof to make such a conclusive statement. In fact, I’m curious, Emergence….are you will to say that ?.....that it is without doubt a transitional fossil ? You seem to be tip-toeing when we get to that point.

- "By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediate stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain unknown."—*L. du Nouy, Human Destiny, p. 58.

- "The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."—*W.E. Swinton, Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, Vol. 1 , p. 1.

- "Perhaps the final argument against Archaeopteryx as a transitional form has come from a rock quarry in Texas. Here scientists from Texas Tech University found bird bones encased in rock layers farther down the geological column than Archaeopteryx fossils."—Richard Bliss, Origins: Creation or Evolution, p. 46.

- Two crow-sized birds were discovered in the Triassic Dockum Formation in Texas. Because of the strata they were located in, those birds would, according to evolutionary theory, be 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx! Nature, 322 , p. 677.

- "It is obvious that we must now look for the ancestors of flying birds in a period of time much older than that in which Archaeopteryx lived."—*J. Ostrom, Science News, 112 , p. 198.

- "The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."—*W.E. Swinton, Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds, Vol. 1, p. 1.

- "This Jurassic bird [Archaeopteryx] stands in splendid isolation; we know no more of its presumed thecodont ancestry nor of its relation to later `proper' birds than before."—*A.S. Romer, Notes and Comments on Vertebrate Paleontology , p. 144.

- "So emphatical were all these creature-birds, that the actual origin of Aves is barely hinted at in the structure of these remarkable remains."—*F.E. Beddard, The Structure and Classification of Birds, p. 160.

- "Most authorities have admitted that Archaeopteryx was a bird because of the clear imprint of feathers in the fossil remains. The zoological definition of a bird is: `A vertebrate with feathers.' Recently, Dr. James Jensen, paleontologist at Brigham Young University, discovered in western Colorado the fossil remains of a bird thought to be as old as Archaeopteryx but much more modern in form. This would seem to give the death knell to any possible use of Archaeopteryx by evolutionists as a transitional form."—Marvin Lubenow, "Report on the Racine Debate," in Decade of Creation, p. 65.

- "No doubt it can be argued that Archaeopteryx hints of a reptilian ancestry, but surely hints do not provide a sufficient basis upon which to secure the concept of the continuity of nature. Moreover, there is no question that this archaic bird is not led up to by a series of transitional forms from an ordinary terrestrial reptile through a number of gliding types with increasing developed feathers until the avian condition is reached."—*M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, p. 176.

- "The age of origin of some modern group of birds is very old, in the Early Cretaceous if not before. This places them very nearly as old as Archaeopteryx, and raises the possibility that Archaeopteryx is not the temporal benchmark of a vain evolution we so often assume."—*J. Cracraft," Phylogenic Relationships and Monophyly of Loons, Grebes, and Hesperomithiform Birds," Systematic Zoology, 31, p. 53.

- "Nothing is known with certainty as to how birds arose from reptiles or from what reptilian stock."—*E. Russell, The Diversity of Animals, p. 118.

1) implying that non-theistic scientists produce biased results2) Using Haeckel as an example of that bias

Corrected to more accurately reflect my assertions:

1) implying that non-theistic scientists might produce biased results2) Using Haeckel as a hypothetical example of that bias

I hate to be rude, but you really need to read what I was responding to. You CLEARLY IMPLIED that one bad apple could indeed spoil the bunch. When I say "clearly implied", I mean there was nothing subtle or nuanced about it.

I understand the classification issue. That makes perfect sense to me. That's really not what I was getting at, though. I still maintain that anyone who claims this creature UNDENIABLY represents a transitional life form lacks the proof to make such a conclusive statement. In fact, I’m curious, Emergence….are you will to say that ?.....that it is without doubt a transitional fossil ? You seem to be tip-toeing when we get to that point.

It is without the shadow of a doubt and without any tiptoeing and totally undeniable a transitional form! I hope that was clear enough. If you haven't got this from what i have written so far, i can only assume that you have a severe comprehension problem.

I don't care for your quotes, as i can only assume that you have neither access to the original sources nor a sufficient understanding of the matter at hand from what transpired in this thread before. I would strongly recommend reading less creationist propaganda and more primary and secondary scientific sources.

It bears repeating that the entire spectrum of fossils are fossil record is transitional!

They start small and simple and get larger and more complicated complex as you progress up the time line.

« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 09:16:52 AM by monkeymind »

Logged

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

It bears repeating that the entire spectrum of fossils are fossil record is transitional!

They start small and simple and get larger and more complicated complex as you progress up the time line.

True. Even though i'd add that not all types of organisms get more 'complex' over time, but that the range of complexity that can be found among all organisms existing in parallel gets larger over time.

The thing with this broad definition of transitional forms is, that it is conceptually well suited to describe change in nature, but is a bit impractical in use when it comes to explaining transitions beyond species level. It might be preferable in that cases to stick to the older, among the public still more common meaning of "transitional-form" or "-fossil"

According to modern evolutionary synthesis, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct of a selected form that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight. Contemporary "transitional" forms may be called "living fossils", but on a cladogram representing the historical divergences of life-forms, a "transitional fossil" will represent an organism near the point where individual lineages (clades) diverge.

(links and formatting removed)

From the view of modern biology the whole taxonomic system with it hierarchical structure of classifications appears as anachronistic and outdated. I think that it will become less and less relevant over time and the main attention will be focused on species level and the distance of genetic relation. It's just my opinion of course.

I was just trying to give a bigger picture to show how silly it is for Biblestudent to argue for one particular transitional form ...

Logged

Truthfinder:the birds adapt and change through million of years in order to survive ,is that science, then cats should evolve also wings to better catch the birdsMailbag:On a side note, back in college before my conversion, I actually saw a demon sitting next to me in critical thinking class.

I would add, though, that the 'missing link' question has always dogged evolutionary biology, almost from day 1. I is a waste of time working on, though, as it is clear that how ever many 'links' one might dig up, creationists will always want more - something between the links and so on.

It also irks me that there is no reference to the most important tool we have today for this study -DNA. It may be too complicated and less graphic but creationists have to be aware of the very significant contribution study of DNA has had in validating the theory of evolution. There is huge amounts of evidence yet even more comes along from DNA. This means attempts to throw out evolution by creationists is going to take a lot more work than the Creation Science people are prepared to invest as nothing coul even possibly be done before an individual had mastered the range of evidence FOR evolution.

OH, and Biblestudent, the Brigham Young university is not really a major scientific research university as it is there to support the odd beliefs of Mormons which were recently invalidated via DNA. Mormon teaching is that the native American population were from Israel and came across at a similar time as Moroni yet DNA evidence dates the native American population to 25,000 years since they cross from Russia. If you are not a supported of Mormonism you might be glad that their holy book can be shown to be actually wrong. watch out, though, are their claims in the bible that might be actually wrong?

meanwhile, for Biblestudent and others - do read this Wikipedia article for a brief explanation of the sort of evidence there is for evolution and follow up the links. Then you will know what you are up against. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

« Last Edit: August 11, 2010, 09:58:03 AM by wheels5894 »

Logged

No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Not really. I just force myself to read and post little. I usually only reply to one topic at a time. That way my nerves do not wear out so fast. But i swear, when i read BS' last reply to me, i could hear a slight "twangy" noise from my patience-tether. You probably still 'hear' it reverberating from my reply.

It is without the shadow of a doubt and without any tiptoeing and totally undeniable a transitional form! I hope that was clear enough. If you haven't got this from what i have written so far, i can only assume that you have a severe comprehension problem.

That's a pretty bold (and intriguing) statement....so I'm going to do some additional digging into the primary and secondary scientific sources, per your suggestion.

I hope you don't think I am making a reckless challenge to your obvious knowledge of the subject matter for the sole purpose of provoking an argument. FWIW...I completely respect your intellect and appreciate the time you spent sharing your knowledge.

Do you want to tell me that you have read each of the quotes you relayed in the publication it originally stems from? If you have i apologize. But i doubt it, given the complications in acquiring elder publications. Isn't it true that you did not pick the quotes yourself from the original publications but relayed them from some anti-evolution, creationism, ID or religious source that used them to make a case against the validity of Archeaopteryx as transitional form?